I like the article <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Quote
Tradition, in the true sense of the word as delineated above, has the greatest potency and, if of the proper kind, the greatest value. But one thing must be appreciated, namely, that tradition, even when it is the best, has no intrinsic authority. Tradition is always subject to the scrutiny and test of Scripture. Its rightness or value is always determined by its conformity to Scripture. This is just saying that it is never proper to appeal to tradition as having intrinsically an authority in matters of faith or morals. Tradition when true and right and good always flows from the Scripture and is simply God's will as revealed in Scripture coming to expression in thought and life. Tradition, when right, is always derived; it is never original or primary. And this is invariably true from whatever aspect tradition is viewed.

So if a church recites the creed every Sunday as tradition, they are not doing so because it is expressly laid down in scripture but b/c it is inferred that the statments made in the creed are the most plainly laid out in scripture and that it is good to confess what scripture teaches? I'm not sure that looks like a question at all but try and read it as such.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />How do Luthern traditions infer their physical traditions such as crossing the chest and and the ceremonial candles and kneeling? If the Luthern church has its traditions and a Reformed church has its traditions can we say at this point <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />"to each his own" as long as these traditions are inferred or grounded on the authority of scripture?

In Christ,
Faris